Castro said he vandalized the restaurant because Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was “the same thing” as “Christians protesting blacks marrying whites” 40 years ago.

Uh huh. Thanks, genius, we’ve seen the photos of those intolerant hatemongers enjoying chicken with their families.

Castro also told HuffPo, “It’s paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It’s not that much of a crime — it’s a protest.”

Not “that much of a crime”?...

Uh huh, thanks, genius to you, Twitchy... and to all the deaf-to-pop-culture dupes who run with this meme. Do you think there is any way that Castro can be hurt by this? You've put photographs of his artwork out there, you've planted his slogan "Tastes Like Hate" in our minds, you've promoted him as the bad boy he wants to be, and the more outrage that's expressed the more successful he is on his own terms.

You're quoting the police as saying they hadn't heard about it, but will look into it, which doesn't make it sound as though Castro's in a whole lot of trouble with the criminal law, and you're slavering with hope that you can change that, but you don't get it that an arrest would only further promote the art career of this erstwhile nonentity.

The most-liked comment over there, from one "lazypadawan," is: "When I last checked, tagging and other sorts of vandalism are crimes. Should we do a #arrestMannyCastroNOW hashtag until the PD locks him up?" Uh, genius, do you have any idea how stupid that is? Or is lazypadawan really Manny Castro or one of his "Hollywood artist" friends?

If you don't know about the various artists who have used graffiti to leverage a career, look it up. Here's a book called "The Faith of Graffiti." It was written by Norman Mailer. In 1973. But that was a long time ago. Maybe you remember this.

Please don't use the comments to instruct me about the scrumptiousness of bait.

So you are saying, the law is no use? Would it be more effective to hurt him or his family? Slash his tires? Paint something of his? Followed by threat of greater harm should he disclose?

What Room 101 aversion therapy can you perform on smirking chimps like this to have them say, publicly or privately, "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I'll never do it again" and, ideally, mean it?

I guess you then have to worry if he is the stereotypical revengeful type or whether he will fold. You also have to craft things so that, e.g., his body floating off the Santa Monica pier is not seized on by the media as a rallying point.

Killing would be most effectual if he were found with a needle in his ARM or otherwise doing something discreditable and/or predictable.

Now you're saying OMG this is crazy! You want to cut off a finger or something because he painted a restaurant? No, because there is no comeuppance under the law, so some other solution must be found. That is why the law is so important, the alternative is lots of missing fingers, missing people, missing daughters, etc.

I guess ideally if you can't stomach crime or violence in return, you just have to watch him like seven hawks, find something uncomplicatedly discreditable he does, like do drugs or molest children or conspire to defraud the lottery, whatever, and arrange for him to get nailed for that.

It would all be so much simpler if fools like our esteemed hostess wouldn't cut their own throats with all this "but" every time somebody does something wrong. You're talking yourself right out of a job, lady. Law professors won't get paid if there is no one to teach because the profession of law is futile.

And as for Cook, who knows everything and will tell me I am a bad man, okay, how would you connive at justice? Just sit at the riverbank and wait long enough for the bodies of your enemies to float by?

Just like the stupid NBC commercial fluff up in the below post....somethings, like this Castro guy are just not worth making a big fuss over. All it does is give attention to something that doesn't deserve it and wastes our time and squanders our purposeful 'indignant wrath' on side shows and trivialities.

Focus people. We have bigger fish to fry or chickens to eat or something.

Of all the tactics the right has adopted from the left over the last few years, this impulse to magnify the irrelevant is one that needs to hit the road. Twitchy doesn't seem terribly concerned with the illegality of the act, but rather that a lawless, anti-social loser like Castro is elevated to near-martyrdom by a dopey, fawning media.

The right doesn't understand the psychology of narcissists--which is to say, most liberals. Castro is Herostratus burning temples, wreaking havoc for the sole sake of notoriety. Attempts to shame him and then ignore him failed, and he ultimately achieved what always wanted: notoriety. Or, for a more recent parallel, consider Tom Zareck from Battlestar Galactica. He couldn't have asked for more than to be thrown in jail. Castro has a martyr complex, and Twitchy seems only too willing to flatter that complex.

What Twitchy is doing here is what liberals do all the time that we find so trite: exploding the insignificant. Whether it's "skinny-as-code-for-black" or "monkey-commercials-following-black-gymnasts," the result is the same: draw attention to something undeserving of attention. I think, like most liberals, Twitchy thinks it can shame its enemies into silence and submission. But I doubt a man tagging a Chick-fil-A while using the radical history of graffiti as moral subterfuge is that susceptible to being shamed.

Ann, I don't think it is a matter of attacking or dminishing the artist Castro personally.

I do think that it is about the meta-media debate.

If someone from the right, or from the traditional marriage side, had defaced a party headquarters, an office, a billboard, a gay bar... it would have been investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime. I have little doubt, but that in this media environment, and with the current Attorney General, it would have been investigated by the Justice Department.

I don't care about helping to publicize "Tastes like hate" as a slogan. It is so utterly over the top, and so patently hypocritical, that I don't mind having that fight in the open.

Althouse's best case scenario is she hopes/prays it makes her patrons think. hmm, I almost said members, but this is one of the few, rather large political blogs which doesn't require membership ie she's too lazy/cheap to upgrade her blog.

She provides a place for her 90/10 conservative dominated flock to vent!

I'll not try to re-invent the wheel, Ann, so I strongly suggest you educate yourself on this topic by visiting City Journal and reading the 30 Sept 2011 art. by Heather MacDonald entitled "Pathetic Crybaby Graffiti Vandals" as well as her Spring 2011 art "Radical Graffiti Chic:Sponsored by L.A.'s aristocracy, the Museum of Contemporary Art's celebrates vandalism" in the same journal.

There have been some great commenters over the years, many of whom are still here, but it's discouraging sometimes to see the unwillingness to step up to a better level. I directly requested you to understand the problem only to get numerous comments that essentially say: No, I want to be dumb. Or: I already got the right-wing talking points and I'm just going to say that over and over.

Some Lefties want to be transgressive and "fight the man." Nothing shows moral support for the plight of the underclass like white hipsters and wannabe artist types admiring the finest tags (with a healthy remove from the crime and lifestyle, in most cases, of course).

Who needs law and order, good art, and a decent audience when you've got some black spray paint, a righteous social message, and the blank canvas of a Chick-Fil-A Wall.

He's a genius, but not as much of a truth teller artiste as Banksy, as Freder points out. We can be like Europe if we just try. Let's start our own Bader-Meinhoff gang!

Coketown, yabbut. Yeah, it's not worth acknowledging, but OTOH, broken windows. You need a lightweight protocol of justice to deal with lightweights like this. Corporal punishment used to be such an answer. And once upon a time in our dark past, corporal punishment administered by the police. No bother with the weight of a court process.

What does it cost to arrest and try some minor offense like tagging? Or a speding ticket if any kind of five minute trial where you still have to pay for arrest time, jail holding time, booking time, the fingerprinting, the horrible jail food, the judge, bailiff, free lawyer, courtroom time?

Mustn't it add up to to hundreds if not thousands for every littering, jaywalking, whatever? All that aside from the outcome and the extralegal consequences like, say, "martyrdom."

Whereas in China, to echo Tom Friedman, what would they do? Probably for minors, give 'em a second of taser time for each year of their age, and for adults, cut off a finger. I bet that'd work like magic. Or try Singapore and the caning. Think a Nanny Castro (oops, typo, hee hee) would stand up to being beaten with rods, let alone brag of it or do it again?

But I think I just found the answer, the best we can do in our poor vitiated time. Let him never be referred to by his right name. Let him always be known as Nanny. Alinsky ridicule. Althouse seems to agree there is nothing else.

The boomers have cultivated two entire generations of brainless drones, teaching them to keep sifting through the rubble of their victorious civil rights battles so they won't notice that the boomers have taken every last cent the youngsters own or will ever own.

I am always amazed at how compliant the post-boomer generations are. They sit in elite colleges and repeat the mantra about "this rights" and "that rights."

All the time missing the fact that the plundering boomers have utter raped and pillaged them and sold them into an economic slavery that rivals the bonds of the past.

As dust bunny said above, all else is a distraction - civil rights being the most pointless of them.

Pointless, Althouse? Can you accept the truth and expand upon it, or is this forum still mired in flagging boomer issues?

2)He must personally remove the graffiti he painted on the Chick-fil-A store, supplying any materials needed for the task at his own expense. The Sheriff of LA County will judge whether Mr. Castro has completed his task satisfactorily.

3) 100 hours community service spent removing graffiti from public and private property. The Sheriff's Office will designate the locations and times where said removal efforts shall occur.

Manny can spend his time obliterating the best work of hundreds of wannabe Banksies, thus endearing him to their hearts.

Chuck said: "Ann, I don't think it is a matter of attacking or dminishing the artist Castro personally."

My point is that anyone talking about him is helping him. He doesn't need defense against your attacks! All attacks advance his cause. You can only help him, so if you don't like him, you are a dupe to attack him.

"If someone from the right, or from the traditional marriage side, had defaced a party headquarters, an office, a billboard, a gay bar... it would have been investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime. I have little doubt, but that in this media environment, and with the current Attorney General, it would have been investigated by the Justice Department."

This is a good point. But then you need to make a conscious decision to help Castro in order to attempt to take down some larger group that you want to be blamed by association. You're saying that if the left-right politics had been reversed, the larger group would have been inappropriately blamed, so I want to blame inappropriately blame the larger group. That's the old 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. If Twitchy had simply made the argument in the form of the observation you just made, that would be fine. But it's not the same thing to just DO the wrong thing that you see the other side doing!

It's important to see that Castro shouldn't be able to help the side he is ostensibly promoting. I think he's mostly in it to promote himself. He's not being careful that he helps that side. Personally, I support gay marriage, but I don't want this self-promoting, property defacing idiot's help. And I resent him squeezing any fame out of this.

Sure. If and when some nutso Lefty does what Lefties do and commits violence in the name of his cause, Castro could be blamed for that. If he were on the Right he, of course, would be destroyed by said violence. Since he is on the Left, it's unlikely. See: Occupy Cleveland and Barack Obama.

My point is that anyone talking about him is helping him. He doesn't need defense against your attacks! All attacks advance his cause. You can only help him, so if you don't like him, you are a dupe to attack him.

How is his caused advanced by bringing attention to his behavior?

Is everything that is "talked about" presumed to be correct, popular, or sympathetic?

There's a scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker is trying to provoke the detective who's guarding him in the holding cell. The detective responds that he (the detective) is savvy enough to understand that the Joker would just enjoy a beating and that it would ultimately serve his (the Joker's) cause.

But the Joker eventually succeeds in provoking him enough that as the detective prepares to beat him he says something to the effect of "I know you're just going to enjoy this so I'll just have to make sure that I enjoy it more."

Now it's worth pointing out that it goes badly for the detective and he does indeed give the Joker exactly what he wants but that's just the way the movie was written. I remember thinking at the time "That's exactly right. Just because the criminal may desire you to behave in a particular way, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Otherwise you've given him complete control."

And I'm really hoping this doesn't get deleted, as I'm not using this analogy to advocate any sort of violence.

My point is that anyone talking about him is helping him. He doesn't need defense against your attacks! All attacks advance his cause. You can only help him, so if you don't like him, you are a dupe to attack him.

This is a great blog but Lord, you do this every once in a while. Yes, there are dumb comments. Yes, there are smart comments. But hello, outside of your classroom we're free to decide what The Important Problem really is.

So this reads to me like this: I directly requested you to agree with me.

Wait wait. Althouse 9:46. Now I was all ready to concede, the answer to your question is no, there is no legal way for Nanny to be hurt by the consequences of his actions, he is comeuppance-free, unless he had selected a target dear to the left, the elites, the MSM, whoever. Plus he is some lowlife who could not be ruined anyway as we understand it, no business to be ostracized, no career to be interrupted and red-flagged like Adam Smith.

But now you descend to "two wrongs?!"

There is exactly nothing left but two wrongs. That is the betrayal. Not to get Crackish, but I have understood this all along and you have avoided it. The alternative to hitting back is to keep getting hit.

Don't you understand what you are advocating? How long does a soft, pretty white woman like you last in the anarchy you are conspiring to create? About as long as it takes until you (and Meade, if present) have to reload.

And if saved, it would be most likely by some poor sap who knows right from wrong, but not how to work the system to deal with a Nanny Castro, within the system. That's your job. You tell us what to do, as a society, with this guy and his type. Now, while there's time. There won't be time or opportunity for Socratic technique while your clothes are being ripped off.

It's important to see that Castro shouldn't be able to help the side he is ostensibly promoting. I think he's mostly in it to promote himself. He's not being careful that he helps that side. Personally, I support gay marriage, but I don't want this self-promoting, property defacing idiot's help. And I resent him squeezing any fame out of this.

Have you considered that what you resent is attention being drawn to his idiocy?Not that you don't want him to get fame, but you don't want this known because you think it hurts the cause you support. (and I support, but I don't care about Castro one way or the other)

Ignore my last comment. Such punishments are useless, and history has proven this. Since the 1960s young offenders have been the subject of so-called "alternative punishments", which include "community service" (leaf raking in public parks usually) "boot camps" (application of the notion that brutal military training can make good citizens out of thugs) and "scared straight" visits to maximum security prisons for the recidivists (which are almost all of them). The problem is they laugh at society's vain attempts at correction, as if criminality is just a mistaken choice, a wrong turn in a labyrinth. Such punishments are seen by the budding members of the criminal class as mere hazing, entry rites into the brotherhood of crime.

So what is to be done? Step one is to burn every book written on penology and criminal psychology written since 1900. The French had it right when they established their penal colony in Guiana -- agonizing toil under harsh climatic conditions for the reformables, solitary confinement in total silence for the incorrigibles. Of course this is only for felons.

For arrogant jackanapes like Manny Castro exile is too harsh. The best punishment in his case is public humiliation. I say "Bring back the stocks!"

Ann Althouse said: My point is that anyone talking about him is helping him.

And we certainly have do a bit of that just on this thread.

I repeat my dense observation of "who cares?"

PS: I live in a large relatively impoverished city where tagging is de rigueur almost everywhere. It is far cheaper and more effective for a city to just remove the inappropriate tags without fanfare, and it deprives the tagger of the notoriety he/she seeks. Castro has less talent in this regard than the average 10 year old here. Nobody would notice him. So I think you point is rather made.

Althouse must have woken up on the wrong side of the menopause today. Although it is not exactly breaking news that a law professor smugly insults and condescends to the very people who are responsible for constributing to their economic success.

In the traditional case it is by being a part of the law school scam which redistributes money from students (ultimately backed by the taxpayer at this point) for an overpriced degree that is not econmically worthwhile anymore. In this, its is the commentators and readership that drive page views and lead to Amazon kickbacks.

People read this blog for a variety of reasons, the ocassionally insightful commentary on current events and issues, for the snarky dialogue of the comments, or just to taunt the trolls. As to why Althouse writes it, clearly it is a combination of academic and ego driven narcisism tinged with economic enhancement.

"BTW, as long as Althouse brought it up, non-rhetorically, what is the point of this blog?"

I used to have it in the banner, and it has always been the case:

To live freely in writing.

Always a very good point.

It's funny, though. As the Professor was wondering about the point of writing the blog, I've been wondering about the point of commenting.

One thing I think bears consideration is the audience of Twitchy, and the hoped for audience of the vandal. The vandal's target market is not the right, or people who frown on graffiti on private or public property. They are fine with it as long as they like the message.

Twitchy is a (I think) relatively new blog that monitors Twitter from (what I've seen) a right wing perspective. The people who read it aren't likely to be this guy's market under any circumstances, so I don't think the attention is going to help him much. HuffPo does a story on him, but its audience is probably favorably disposed to "guerrilla street art."

Which brings me, more or less to the point of commenting, or lack of a point. Twitchy and HuffPo are part of the internet, and their stories rarely make it into the non-internet world. Those are read mostly by partisans who either have already been convinced, or will under almost no circumstances become convinced that they are wrong. Mostly, though people will not hear about what they are writing, because only a few stories make it beyond the internet. Really, no comments do. Most comments just sort of sit there, and don't get a response. Even those that do get traction, don't really get beyond the single post to which they respond.

So what's the point? I guess if it is anything beyond "to live freely in writing," I'm missing it. The only other question is: is there a better way to live freely than by commenting?

"'Seriously, today may be the day when I change my mind about the point of writing this blog.' That might be a good idea."

As I said, my point to myself has always been the same: to live freely in writing. I'm not changing my mind about that, I realize. I want to reconfirm that's the point and not something else. I don't want to be distracted by anything else. That's what I need to remember. If people don't understand things... I've been dealing with that all along. I'm not going to pander to the readers or cater to them. On day 1, writing this blog, I loved the idea that anyone could read this. That was very exciting. That anyone actually does read this is cool. But it's important not to be distracted. I love to set up conversations and participate in them, but the actual success of every conversation can't be my responsibility. I always imagine the conversation will roll out in a fascinating way, but that doesn't always happen. I could be more of a maestro of conversation, perhaps, by deleting more of the early comments that -- as the directions above say -- misunderstand the point of the post (and by that I mean misunderstand the point of the post in a way that is detrimental to good conversation), but I have to keep moving forward, and I'm not the monitoring type. I'm not about sculpting conversation... if that's an art that exists.

Instead of focusing on getting control of our spending and increasing economic growth, we are spending time talking about and HEADLINING on the MSM trivial things like gay marriage, chicken sandwiches, who made an insulting video towards a fast food clerk, whether a candidate wears funny underwear, who painted some lame slogan on a wall....

Everywhere we look it is......SQUIRREL and distraction from the disaster unfolding behind us.

Is it right that some yahoo defaced a building. No. Is it criminal. Yes. If we talk and talk and talk about him [the punk with a paint brush] will it make him famous and make him happy. Yes.

Will it cost more time, money and effort to get even with him or bring him to justice than it is really worth. YES!!! We could prosecute every vandal, spend time chasing them down. Or we could just get a can of paint and cover it up.

How freely are you living, anyway, Professor? The day you have the nerve to make a declarative statement of opinion or even fact is a rare one. Doesn't your notion of freedom extend to SAYING what you think instead of hinting at it?

Speaking of bait, it was soo good to hear from Mick last night. We may be learning wondrous new things from him for years to come if Rubio or Jindal becomes VP, except that the VP fades away (is that racist?) after January.

If we ignore Mick, will he go away?

When the activist gays weren't satisfied with civil unions, it became obvious that SSM is largely about poking traditionalists in the eye. However, they're much further along than Castro in making money out of it--and without individual notoriety, except for Sullivan.

Ann Althouse said... @Rusty You not only recommended a violent crime (presumably as a joke) but you also inserted extra spaces (many extra spaces) for graphic emphasis.

Like.

This.

I'm demonstrating something there. Do not do that. I will delete.

Rusty(looking at shoes, arms at his sides) Yes. Mrs. Lubn-er Althouse.To be fair I wasn't promoting violence. Just noting what an impassioned, unartistic individual might-MIGHT resort to.I do not condone violence of any sort. Unless it is to save my own ass. I may, of course, through no fault of my own, and totally inadvertantly, initiate fisticuffs by some stray or odd remark directed at someone who may or may not be sensitive about their intelligence.It can happen.Being the artistic and sensitive soul that I am, I think public spaces should be made available so these, "artists of the street', if you will, can have a canvas on which to express themselves.Say, the state capitol building.

Tom Spaulding said...Call me when he spray paints "Halal tastes like Hate" on a mosque.

Until then, he's a REMF in the culture wars.

=====================Good point. And Althouse sort of misses the point when she talks about blowing off (no pun intended) the illegality of this little poofter's graffitti while saying those that advocate illegal acts in response will be deleted.

After Prop 8 - the homosexual activists only targeted those they thought they could attack verbally (Christian breeders) or assault physically (desecration of Mormon and white Catholic churches).Left untouched in the homo backlash were those that they justly feared would lodge charges of racism, anti-Semitism (conservative Jews), or Islamophobia.Or simply beat the homos to a pulp or worse if they were caught disrupting services at a mosque, a black or Barrio church. Let alone defacing it like the gays did with St Patricks in NY and 15 Mormon stake churches or temples they went at with spray paint, blood, excretions...

These militant gays are a fairly craven lot that rely on CIVILITY. They will only assault the character or property of those they think they are safe from retaliation in doing so.

You want to flip "Manny Ramos" right out of his gourd?? Just make up and spread 2,000 posters around LA "Islam- It Smells of Hate." (signed Manny Castro at the bottom)..."Black Churches - As Evil as Hitler, Their Stupid Christianist Breeder Flock as Dumb as Apes"(signed Manny Castro at the Bottom)

You would drive that little poseur as deep into hiding as the threats made against George Zimmerman drove that guy...

1. Publicity whores, in general, should be ignored: don't give them the publicity they desire (without actually deserving it.)

2. Vandalism, even clever vandalism, is an assault against the property of others. Society really does want to discourage this (AND, for our society at least, find a way to mitigate the large expense of prosecution vs the small cost of the crime, hopefully without going to the level of Singapore or allowing police to brutalize suspects as long as they're of the wrong sort.)

That last bit about vandalism is a hard enough circle to square on its own, but then when you add the publicity-whore layer on top... there really is no easy outcome, though I think we're generally choosing the lose-lose options these days.

Ann, since you appreciate the "art" so much, can I ship you, COD, the fifty or so textbooks I have to use in my classroom covered with this kind of "art"? They only cost $65, each, to replace, which is a bargain as they have quite the assortment of gang tags and dope smoking themes, along with the usual assortment of Anglo-Saxon monosyllabic words referring to bodily functions and drawings reproductive organs.

The basis of art is that it has some value be it aesthetic, monetary or religious. But that was porn. It was done for puerile gratification, about as subtle as a Mardi Gras reveler lifting her shirt for beads and about as long lasting as well.

"Will it cost more time, money and effort to get even with him or bring him to justice than it is really worth. YES!!! We could prosecute every vandal, spend time chasing them down. Or we could just get a can of paint and cover it up.

But FOCUS PEOPLE!!!! We have bigger problems.=====================Problem is there is a tradition of cunning people that embrace the wisdom "never waste a good crisis".Meaning that when BIG THINGS are dominating people's efforts and attention...

1. It is a great time to get rich financing war buying or setting up and running war profits enterprises or black markets.2. While a country is at War, it is time to seize power in other spheres..as the Jewish Bolsheviks and National Socialists did.3. A Depression is a perfect time to enact socialist law while people are focusing on bigger things.4. Crisis can facilitate the Leftist agenda for culture war on placid people that do not fight back...white businesses, churches. It forms another line of defense/offense..."How DARE you spend so much time opposing gay marriage when you should be Focusing on THE BIG THINGS!! Just give us gay marriage as LEGAL and EVERYWHERE --and FOCUS on the country and the economy!!!

1. Publicity whores, in general, should be ignored: don't give them the publicity they desire (without actually deserving it.)

2. Vandalism, even clever vandalism, is an assault against the property of others. Society really does want to discourage this (AND, for our society at least, find a way to mitigate the large expense of prosecution vs the small cost of the crime, hopefully without going to the level of Singapore or allowing police to brutalize suspects as long as they're of the wrong sort.)

=================There is a solution.If it is too much trouble and expense for our "majestic legal system" to deal with...if you shrink from having these "tagging artists" caned under color of law, Singapore style..

Abandon civility.

Hundreds of churches and temples were disrupted or defaced by angry homosexuals following Prop 8's defeat. Yet not a single black church or mosque.WHY IS THAT??

I don't object to hearing Mick out, even if he does get rude and nasty, because people are nasty to him. I grew up and went through school thinking that natural born citizen meant what he says it means, born here of 2 citizen parents. I mean, anchor babies can't be President, right?

So while I am with most of you in the societal inertia mode of

-Gee if Obama weren't an NBC, how could he have been allowed to run and win and what was the mechanism for shutting him down, gee why didn't anybody do that, gee it must be okay, right?-

I would like him to be rebutted with better arguments than Shut up, doody head.

. Crisis can facilitate the Leftist agenda for culture war on placid people that do not fight back...white businesses, churches. It forms another line of defense/offense..."How DARE you spend so much time opposing gay marriage when you should be Focusing on THE BIG THINGS!! Just give us gay marriage as LEGAL and EVERYWHERE --and FOCUS on the country and the economy!!!

8/5/12 11:31 AM

You're guilty of this yourself. You have often proposed that the GOP candidate kick the right wing in the teeth and insultingly say that he will not fight on red-meat issues of one sort or another.

This was a local bit of vandalism that should have stayed local and been handled locally. Castro offered himself up to Huffpo for his own reasons, and instead of saying so what, Huffpo chose to run with itand give him what he wanted.

Standing alone the Huffpo interview would probably be met with "meh" outside the echo chamber. There was no need for Twitchy to get involved, and if anything only prolongs the story.

Unfortunately, in today's media, there's no longer such a thing as a local story if it can be made to fit someone's agendum.

Media restraint (not rising to the bait) is the only sane response in the face of attempted provocation.

No, you love to lead classroom discussions. I don't care at all for your schoolmarmery, but I give you enough credit to assume you don't start actual conversations with people by saying eg, "How about the Packers? And remember, this is a conversation about the sports team. Do not delve into ancillary topics such as the weather at the stadium, concession quality, etc."

I need smarter comments

They're smarter than the post, or your whining.

Why are you even reading my blog?

For the comments.

You seem to think the clean white space under the post is being defaced by the comments, but what you don't understand is that expressing outrage is entirely counterproductive. Do you think there is any way that commenters can be hurt by this?

It is sad to see so much naivete among the community here. No one here has entertained the possibility that this work was commisioned by Chick Fil A to continue and aggravate the controversy. The suits at Chick probably used several middlemen to screen their activities, but they know that every act of guerrilla art such as this sells another million sandwiches. Sotto voce talks are being held with Rosie O'Donnell to get her to have her next marriage at a KFC.....What Ann says about Castro goes double for Chick Fil A. Attempts to blacken their reputation simply increases their sales.

Picture Manny Castro pilloried outside the LA County Municipal Court, right on the corner of 1st Street and Grand Avenue, subjected helplessly to the extremes of weather and the abusive taunts of passersby.

Now picture a delegation of Baptists bringing food and drink to the sufferer -- Manny Castro hand fed morsels of CFA chicken and waffle fries and given sips of the best damned peach milkshake in existence. Manny Castro pilloried would bring out the Baptists bearing succor, I guarantee it.

When someone is on target, they are on target no matter what their "reputation." Many here dismiss cedarford, I know, because of certain of his views, but his comments@11:06 are SQUARE in the bulls-eye...anyone here want to dispute the truth/accuracy of his observations?

Well, Virgil, I would just say that a good false flag op is probably harder than it seems; that Nanny would be allowed to explain and deny, and that it just wouldn't work, certainly not without an artist capable of counterfeiting Nanny's style.

But yeah, I take C4's meaning. I try to deal with him straight when possible. Problem is, when you've got him, he doesn't admit it, just slinks away.

I directly requested you to understand the problem only to get numerous comments that essentially say: No, I want to be dumb. Or: I already got the right-wing talking points and I'm just going to say that over and over.

Why are you even reading my blog?

You've nailed why I've been staying away:

Having to sit out this election, over Romney, has made me see the comments in a new light - how little actual thinking is going on, and how much partisan bullshit rules.

I saw it before, over how they glom onto Garage's every word, as though there's a chance of convincing him of anything, but the Rah-Rah Romney echo chamber - and especially the "give him a pass" (on vetting) attitude - is especially galling. It's like there can be no objective voice allowed. I don't Obama. I don't like Romney. I'll bring up shit on both of them. But the rest of these fools want to act like that shouldn't be allowed and, under no circumstances, can there can be anything wrong with the Mormon mongoloid. They're not thinking about the country at all - just their hatred for Obama.

Well, you screwed the pooch, again, folks. You picked a weirdo. Deal with it.

And one way to do so is to stop lying (to yourselves and everyone else) and see both candidates for the flawed politicians, and people, they are.

Obama had Oprah, Mitt's got the Mormons.

I'll rally with you when you pick a man who stands on his own two feet,...

There have been some great commenters over the years, many of whom are still here, but it's discouraging sometimes to see the unwillingness to step up to a better level. I directly requested you to understand the problem only to get numerous comments that essentially say: No, I want to be dumb. Or: I already got the right-wing talking points and I'm just going to say that over and over.

Why are you even reading my blog?

Ann, Here is why I read your blog. I have no idea whether you consider me a regurgitate talking points conservative or not. Socially, I have little in common with most conservatives, having come from a very liberal background, academic parents (sciences), no business background, and I'm an atheist.

I read your blog because sometimes there is a window into understanding the liberal mind. It's very hard for me. And it's always nice to read smart people's ideas (even that Egoamaniac Robert Wright is interesting to listen to sometimes as he deftly and quickly understands ideas).

That having been said, I don't get it. Yesterday you had the blog about the Mom who got 50 hours of community service because her 4 year old chalked up a friggen rock at a park. Frankly, I was surprised to see how many people thought that so offensive, and further the mom got what she deserved because she was disrespectful to the ranger.

Here we have some other point, linking graffiti to freedom of expression, or art or something. The whole thing simply seems to me a way to cheapen the debate and polarize people into two groups, and to make a bit of money along the way (not including present company). The person who made the graffiti seems like one who has been brainwashed into a viewpoint. Why would I care what he thinks? Is he going to have a reasoned discussion about institutions that have been around for millenia, popped up all over the world independent of specific religions, and how now that we have the True Viewpoint of fairness for all we need to destroy them and replace them with (welfare?)

I enjoy that you don't always say what's on your mind, as it "leaves room" for other people to consider there own thoughts, but sometimes you are stifling when you think you know the answer.

Your point below regarding you thought you new for certain what Drudge was saying is one such instance. You messed up, calling a "short range missile" a "long range missile," and in my view missed the point that short(ened) things are still potent. Sexual connotations? Hard to say. But you left zero room for discussion.

I liked the post, because as I looked at it, a different kind of sense of the pictures became clear, and a feeling came out. One commenter who said "Do this long enough, and you are bound to play around with the images (and their relations)." That was insightful, and cool, but I got it from a commenter.

Nichevo - You're guilty of this yourself. You have often proposed that the GOP candidate kick the right wing in the teeth and insultingly say that he will not fight on red-meat issues of one sort or another.=================I was pointing out that after alienating a huge number of women and independents with RTL fanaticism, mandatiry vaginal probes, and the Terri Schiavo Fiasco....Republicans would be nuts to run on a Religious Right "Values Platform" front and center like Santorum wanted...instead of on the economy, jobs, and Obama's general ineptitude.

Yes, there is a recognition of how successful the war profiteers, the Bolsheviks, and National Socialists, the Bankers destroying our financial system while Bush Fixated on a few thousand Terrahist Evildoers - were in getting their agenda passed while the nation they were in focused on Bigger Things.

Conservatives have learned and embraced Trotsky's and Rahm Emmanuel's maxim to never waste the opportunity a good crisis gives.Conservative business owners savaged workers by amping up illegal immigration and outsourcing while the country was focused on Bigger things. Same with conservative bankers and defense contractors looting 100s of billions from the Fed Government. Grover Norquists idiot "no tax pledge", "no negotiation, just let the deficit grow pledge" came into being.

Maybe the Professor should make commenters pay for the priviledge, like Richochet. This will certainly improve the neighborhood and she won't need to belitte the stupid people while begging for donations.

Crack misses the point that "weirdos" can be decent human beings and can actually lead well and make good decisions and respect civil liberties. Based ob Cracks definitoon of "weirdo", many of our founders were weirdos.

He also misses the point that his definition of 'weirdo" may not be all that balanced.

Thanks Professor, for the many years of raising our intellects in so many areas. I mean that sincerely.

But the dueling comments to your post reminded me of the reactions to an earth shaking posting once made in Three Volumes in Latin in 1686 by Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton called it his Philosophiae Principia Mathematica, and it was as carefully and beautifully written as your long posts. And you use English.

It stunned everyone by explaining everything about the universe that he knew but refusing to speculate on what he did not know. It was understood by maybe 100 people at first read, and the of the commenters jumped his case from every direction.

Please jeep blogging if only for the 100 who understand your great work.

I was too bored by the story to read about it, so i did a Google image search for his name and learned all i needed to know about it. What's especially sad is that he isn't even cute. You could see humoring him for a minute or two if he was really cute or something... maybe he has a big cock. But it seems he's a failed New York store window dresser who fled to an even bigger cultural wasteland and managed to attract the attention of some Z-list non-entities somehow, perhaps by slapping them with his big cock. The triumph of his artistic career seems to be his late staining of a chicken restaurant with some eye-rolling topical banalities.

Low-talent opportunistic self-promotion whore opportunistically self-promotes. Wake me when he poses nude for something, in case he really does have a big cock.

I'll rally with you when you pick a man who stands on his own two feet,...

I'm glad I don't have to vote. Thankfully, I live in CA.

That having been said, I don't see much difference between accepting these things:

a) God created everything, including a woman from a man's rib, and if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you are going to burn in hell eternally.

b) That you get your own planet if you live a really good life (but at least you won't go to hell if you don't believe).

c) The Universe came from "Nothing" (or alternatively, has always been around).

It's all crazy talk. So Crack, to the extent you reject Mormonism on the account there are crazy beliefs, it's all so infinitely crazy I don't see much difference.

The only difference is on the one hand the religions give you something to hold on to. One of my pet suspicions is that science does not give anything to hold onto, and as a result a new religion in the left has been born, and has all the same properties.

It's simply too hard to live without meaning and answers. Frankly, I think that's the road to un-contained madness.

this is simple - the 'artist's freely admits that he did this and that he is proud of it. Fine. Does this merit jail time? No. Does this merit the 'artist' being required to clean the tag off the building and then pay for whatever additional costs are required to repaint? Absolutely. As a former small business owner I can tell you that it gets real old real quick to pay a handyman $200 - $500 dollars to paint a section of my building just because someone considers their vandalism as 'art'.

I agree with Ann that Castro would be rewarded by being prosecuted and the whole point is to NOT reward bad behavior. Castro is actually a hypocrite; he claims to fight for free speech, but he does this by trampling on other people's right to free speech. After all, the owners made a choice not to have any text on their wall.

Trad? Comparing Althouse to NEWTON? Buddy, either way she's not gonna blow you.

C4, sigh, had a long devastating response on my phone which then died. But you're dancing, sir, you're dancing. If you had not cut the piece of your own post that I quoted, it would be impossible to hide.

It seems that your overarching principle is that you want to be in charge, you want to be the decider, and you will tell everybody which hills to die on and where to advance in the other direction.

That, and those you disagree with should be shit upon as egregiously as possible. What was that old line...the Soviets are our adversary. Our ENEMY is the Army/the Navy/the Air Force.

You also have real problems with civil disagreement, agreeing to disagree, granting that the other fellow might POSSIBLY be sincere and well-intentioned even if, by your lights, wrong. Everybody who buys into Schumpeter isn't some Jew traitor or Jew puppet, for one instance of many.

For another, people who early or late come to the belief that gee, we have murdered, or allowed to be murdered, fifty million tiny inconvenient people in the name of "choice" and "penumbra" and "what is life? he asked, and would not stay for an answer" and gosh, we should stop that right away, aren't wet-brained. (I know most of them are darkies and you want them gone, but still.)

Nor are folks who for one reason or another weren't panting to pull the switch on poor Terry Schiavo before issues could be aired and facts ascertained.

Geez, Cedarford, if you really want to do something for US social hygiene, let's get together and agree to kill everybody who is now in jail or prison. Just do it, what the hell. Two million people who will never do anything useful for society again. The screws too, fuck 'em. Just caulk up the windows and fill 'em with water till it comes out the roof. They, by definition, would at least be guilty of SOMETHING. And think how low recidivism would go!

twitchy started out highlighting amusing and interesting tweets from those in the news, entertainment, and sports. but, malkin being who she is i guess, has quickly devolved her site to being just another place from which she can stir up the torch-and-pitchfork crowd against lefties, the not-particularly-religious, and, of course, those ever-popular punching bags, gay folks. i find it tiresome, but it does seem to get a lot of people all..well..twitchy.

I enjoy coming to the Althouse blog because I feel like I am getting a blog from someone interesting and who is definitely posting in the "To live freely in writing" tradition. I don't always agree with her conclusions or interpretations, but it's genuine and meant to be interesting to her; as it's HER blog.However, many in the commentariat of this blog have an outsized opinion of their own importance and intelligence, not to mention interesting-ness. I think *some* commenters think that it's not Ann's blog, but rather, a platform to prattle their really, really shop-worn talking points no matter what the subject of the post is. And perhaps worst of all think they are clever for doing that!Ask yourself honestly, Would you invite yourself to a "conversation party"? Do you really have anything interesting, germane, or important to say? - Aye, there's the rub, Althouse. A lot of these boring commenters think they *do* have something *important* to say - and you have given them a platform on the world's stage (they never would have had otherwise) and that is read by all-sorts of people including influence-peddlers (even people who politically disagree with this blog respond to it...) So, to clumsily round this out: Mrs. Alhouse you have created one of the world's most read law-blogs; err, I mean Chik-Fil-A Walls and then handed out cans of spray-paint for free... Why draw attention to the fact that it's being abused? [ /rhetoric]

But, really, when HOTAIR.com comments start making as many good observations that your blog commenters - something's amiss.And I check in on each of these blogs everyday.

P.S. Actually, I thought the hypothetical JFK assassination post's comments were pretty interesting for the most part...

"Trad? Comparing Althouse to NEWTON? Buddy, either way she's not gonna blow you."

On a related note edutcher is here posting on every damn thread because he has nowhere else to go or do. So in a sense, Althouse provides a service.

"However, many in the commentariat of this blog have an outsized opinion of their own importance and intelligence, not to mention interesting-ness"

edutcher in a nutshell, although if he left for say, (3) mos., people would definitely notice lol and smile. Go figure!

>

But to be fair, blogging does tend to give one a sense of over-importance as they type away at their keyboards ad nauseam, the masters of their small universe. At my 1st reality blog a group of hoity-toity snobs made several demands or else they would leave. No one has heard from them since. :)

Nichevo and Shiloh...Althouse has a special trait in common with Newton, which is her caution to express things right and not to overstate her case while she explains a brilliant insight.

So when I don't understand her at first, then I keep thinking about what she said and always discover some useful gem. Maybe it's not a solution to how the universe works, but it is usually interesting and new to me.

Maybe that is unfair to those who pop off at the first hint of a misstatement because they don't understand her subject.

Your "hypothesis" re: Althouse is somewhat true in general, but when it comes to politics it's katy bar the door ie her personal anti-Obama, pro mittens prejudices shine thru w/flying colors as she tries to appease her con flock.

Which is fine, again the nature of political blogs er know thyself.

Basically, I wouldn't drop by every now and then if I didn't find her interesting and her con posters entertaining!

>

When Newt annihilated Romney in the SC primary, Althouse opined ~ I project (4) more years of Obama. Surely her emotions er disappointment that night was overtaking her thought process as no election is won or lost in the primary season, much as Romney tried his best lol.

a) God created everything, including a woman from a man's rib, and if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you are going to burn in hell eternally.

b) That you get your own planet if you live a really good life (but at least you won't go to hell if you don't believe).

c) The Universe came from "Nothing" (or alternatively, has always been around).

It's all crazy talk. So Crack, to the extent you reject Mormonism on the account there are crazy beliefs, it's all so infinitely crazy I don't see much difference.

So a theory that "The Universe came from "Nothing" (or alternatively, has always been around)" is the same as the direct statements "you are going to burn in hell eternally" or "you get your own planet"? Really? How?

"The Universe came from "Nothing" (or alternatively, has always been around)" doesn't knock you down or pump you up like those other two. It doesn't make you any worse or better, as they do, either.

And if you can be allowed to drop "God created everything, including a woman from a man's rib, and if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you are going to burn in hell eternally" into any conversation, why are we talking? The claim is religion brings us together but I certainly don't want to talk to you if you're going to arrogantly change the rules of communication to malarky that can't be challenged whenever you wish.

And why do we get an education if we're allowed the "you get your own planet" gambit? Why weren't we allowed to tell the science teacher to fuck off because we're going to rule over his sorry ass on OUR planet? (Can you see that scenario occurring from discussing "The Universe came from "Nothing" (or alternatively, has always been around)"?)

And what part of that planet deal screams "Christianity" to you? Or is it the Egyptian hieroglyphics Joseph Smith saw in the magic hat? Or his use of a "seer stone" (AKA a crystal ball)?

See, you guys won't even challenge them on something as painfully obvious as Mormonism isn't Christianity. "But we have Jesus Christ in our name!" they yell. Sure, and a supplement seller (like our honest man, Romney) can get away with saying it “boosts the immune system.” Doesn't make it so - it's a scam.

BTW - is lying that his products "boosts the immune system” another example of Romney's honesty? What part of living "a really good life" is that lie included under? And can't you see that, if your "religion" was started by a con man, conning outsiders might be considered "good"?

It worked for the Gypsies.

Question - again:

What part of getting your own planet, Egyptian hieroglyphics, magic hats and crystal balls says "Christmas" to you?

Yet you buy their Christian bullshit, defend them, and call them nice, and honest, while they shovel manure down your throat - and all because you're too chickenshit to call them on any of it.

And where are they going to stop? It's obvious you'll swallow anything. Oh, you'll stop me. You'll grill me for days - an individual American - but these guys? This group actively working together for their own interests against the gentiles? You'll let them get away with murder before you even consider something might be up. You'll have Romney and the Prophets thoroughly moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. before you ever get a sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, that might not've been such a good idea.

Give them power, THEN find out what's up - that's the smart way to handle internal threats to the country.

On the other hand, Ann, what do we call crimes committed against victims because of their actual or perceived religion? As i recall, those are classified as hate crimes. Why shouldn't this be prosecuted as such?

I sometimes wonder why the corporate goons put up with being harassed. Not just this one, but the nuisance law suits. If they were goons they would behave goonishly and pay right back. Right back, not be extorted for awhile first then back. A goon would paint the wall and simultaneously seek restitution and not stop until he was goonishly satisfied. So they're not goons after all. They're pussy cats. Allowing themselves to be extorted. Extorted to paint their own walls when it wasn't needed for regular upkeep and to rid it of hate message put up by someone else and extorted to advance an artists ambitions because his art doesn't stand on its own, or otherwise in other cases extorted to all sorts of ridiculous overregulation and contrived lawsuits. Why haven't goons struck back in the ways of a goon and cap their asses? Like on teevee.

Everything has a beginning that I can think of. It came from something else. Nothing is simply "created." And nothing lasts forever. That's the science (or, perhaps, we really don't exist). It sounds crazy to me. NONE of it makes sense. Sorry if that offends you, or help me to understand why it does.

My personal belief is we don't know enough to make a lot of decisions people of authority make. We make a lot of decisions for the next generation, limiting their freedoms. And furthermore there are powerful groups vying for control. What's in my best interests, of advancing our knowledge? I don't think you will get there by bigger government. I don't think you will get there by fewer freedoms. So the question to me is, which of these two is better in that regard. At present, I think BO sucks. Romney is an unknown.

Now, support your position. Don't simply vomit shit, and make it sound as if you made a point. I still do not have a sense of whether you think BO, who in my mind has proven himself to have a hidden agenda, is as bad as the Romney agenda you allude to, with its secretiveness, and in my view adherence to an alternate religion of leftist government state control, which has been proven to be inferior time and time again.

But if that's what you want, come out and say so. Stop wimping out and saying "I'm going to sit back here and throw shit at everyone."

Things aren't always what they seem. My sources had told me that the suits at Chick Fil A were ginning up this controversy to sell more sandwiches. Castro didn't just go out and spontaneously splatter graffiti. He was paid a handsome commission to do this.. Overweight, balding men have been approached by strangers in gay bars and asked to make out in front of Chick Fil A for a fee. Even here in this comments section, we see mysterious commenters popping up and recommending that Baptists buy chicken sandwiches and distribute them as an act of love to the local hairdresser....My first response to these obviously coordinated efforts was to ascribe them to the marketing genius of Chick Fil A. But that's what my sources wanted me to believe. I have since discovered that the conspiracy is far deeper than that. Just before Rahm Emanuel and Menino made their hostile comments about Chick Fil A, the DNC bought massive amounts of call options on Chick Fil A. Coincidence? I think not. This whole Chick Fil A contretemps has enriched not just the good Christians who run that company, but the DNC who purchased the call options. Truly diabolical. Every chicken sandwich you buy helps to elect Obama.....Is Althouse in on this conspiracy. This is I cannot say with certainty, but she is certainly doing her part to keep the controversy alive.

Crack,...It sounds crazy to me. NONE of it makes sense. Sorry if that offends you, or help me to understand why it does.

I don't get offended. I get pissed. Totally different.

Look, if you can't handle the idea of something coming from nothing, that's your hang-up. You've got to deal with that, as surely as I'm coping with living with weak bastards who'd rather be in cults than be men. We all have our burdens to bear - that's yours.

At present, I think BO sucks. Romney is an unknown.

Again, to speak about either - without his cult - is worthless and dishonest.

Now, support your position. Don't simply vomit shit, and make it sound as if you made a point.

But that's all that works on morons. Ahhh, I see what you're doing,...nice try, moron.

I still do not have a sense of whether you think BO, who in my mind has proven himself to have a hidden agenda, is as bad as the Romney agenda you allude to, with its secretiveness, and in my view adherence to an alternate religion of leftist government state control, which has been proven to be inferior time and time again.

Aren't you the guy who said, "It sounds crazy to me. NONE of it makes sense."? Why should I try to convince a guy who admits he finds simple scientific concepts difficult? What's in it for me?

But if that's what you want, come out and say so. Stop wimping out and saying "I'm going to sit back here and throw shit at everyone."

Nope - "I'm going to sit back here and throw shit at everyone" - because, even if I can get nothing else out of you, it's fun,...

"I wonder if the homosexual community even realizes they have a close to 20 year shorter life expectancy? Or that they can never donate blood?"

Gays are/have sued to be able to donate blood because being prevented from donating blood is ... discrimination or some such stupid thing.

As someone who occasionally, every couple of years it seems, has gotten and probably will get a whole blood transfusion this rather upsets me.

Oh I don't care about the gay part. I care that the blood supply may be tainted with diseases that are endemic to the gays that cannot be filtered out or prevented from entering said blood supply with 100% certainty.

Yeah because gay men are only 2,000 times more likely to be infected with diseases than tested & screened repeat donors. Secure and safe blood supply? Who the fuck needs that?

It worked for the French right? HIV/AIDS infected donors were allowed to taint the blood supply in France and practically all of the hemophiliacs in France were infected in short order.

And people wonder why I'm so fucking tired of the gay this, gay that. Because for gays it isn't about what is right or wrong. It's about getting back at society. About sticking a thumb in your parent's or communities eyes. It's about being a complete bunch of fucking assholes to everyone and having them take it.

Aren't you the guy who said, "It sounds crazy to me. NONE of it makes sense."? Why should I try to convince a guy who admits he finds simple scientific concepts difficult? What's in it for me?

How do you figure something from nothing is a simple scientific concept, Crack? I'm not aware of anyone who has a clue how that could be. Oh, there are the string theorists who posit strings and structures existing that could collide to make something, but that's not something out of nothing. Actually, it sounds a lot like God said "Let there be light."

So we end where we started, you throwing shit because it is fun, but providing no alternative.

Me glad I don't have to make a choice, though my mind is slowly changing (I don't like follow the rules, manage the decline Romney. But I've been considering how dangerous Obama is, and who knows what he might try next. My position is evolving, so to speak).

Meanwhile, if you want to provide value, you could indicate what terrors you think Romney is going to bring down on us, or maybe you should be ignored. No point in stomping your feet, saying "Listen to me, you are all idiots because," and then not tell us the "because."